ise_ers_search_endpoint

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what pagination/sorting behavior to expect, whether filter syntax follows ERS conventions, or what the response format looks like. For a search/filter tool, the lack of behavioral context (especially around filter expression syntax) is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and 80% undocumented schema coverage. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary detail about filter expression syntax and usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only 20% schema description coverage, this tool is under-documented. A search/filter tool with pagination params and a filter expression language needs more explanation about the filter syntax, pagination behavior, and how it relates to sibling endpoint tools. Currently the description provides just a single sentence that leaves most behavioral and parameter details undisclosed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'ERS filter expressions' which hints at the 'filter' parameter, but it does not explain page, size, or sort semantics beyond their defaults. The 'deployment' parameter has good in-schema documentation, but the description adds nothing about how filter expressions are structured or what ERS filter syntax expects.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Search/filter Endpoints with ERS filter expressions' which names a specific verb (search/filter) and resource (Endpoints). It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like ise_ers_list_endpoint, ise_ers_get_endpoint, or the many other search_* tools, nor does it clarify how it differs from the generic ise_ers_search tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of how it relates to ise_ers_list_endpoint, ise_ers_search_endpointgroup, or the generic ise_ers_search. The 'deployment' parameter description does direct users to ise_list_deployments, which is helpful but peripheral to core usage guidance about when to filter versus list versus get.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.